2023 (6) TMI 247 - HC - Money Laundering

Remand application - Money Laundering - operation of the large scale Havala racket in international cricket betting through U.K. based website - HELD THAT - The grounds as observed for rejection of remand application is noting the medical condition of the accused on record, as was perused of the medical check up certificate issued by the Medical Officer of VS hospital, Ahmedabad and accordingly, it was observed that the blood pressure of the accused was very high. No other medical condition was noted to suggest any imminent danger to the life of the respondent. No such ailment or illness has been noted which would not permit the respondent to face the custodial interrogation. The only observation is of the applicant suffering from blood pressure which is noted to be high. However that medical condition of the respondent could be taken care of by providing medicine to control his blood pressure and it may be possible that the respondent himself may be under such medication. However, if necessary, the respondent can always take the assistance of the medical doctor during the course of interrogation as it would be the duty of the applicant as provided under Section 55A of the Cr.P.C. to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused. In view of the provision of Section 55A of the Cr.P.C., the applicant would be under duty to take all reasonable care to see that the health and safety of the accused is protected. So any apprehension raised by the respondent about his life is unfounded as investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement would have to ensure about the safety of the accused. The order order dated 8.4.2023 passed by the learned Special Designated Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur is quashed and set aside and the applicant is granted the remand of the respondent accused for 4 (four) days - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to rejection of remand application under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Details of the judgment:

1. The Directorate of Enforcement challenged the order rejecting the remand application of Anil Bhagwandas Jaisinghani, citing intelligence on a Havala racket in international cricket betting. The search of a farm house led to seizure of incriminating documents and observations of IPC offenses. Statements indicated involvement in betting activities and use of forged sim cards, leading to a case being filed. A case was registered against Jaisinghani for proceeds of crime identification. Despite non-cooperation during searches and summons, Jaisinghani remained absconding.

2. Jaisinghani was in judicial custody in Mumbai, and a transfer warrant was obtained for custodial interrogation in connection with money laundering offenses. The applicant sought custody for interrogation, highlighting Jaisinghani's possession of proceeds of crime and involvement in various criminal cases across states. The remand application was rejected on medical grounds of high blood pressure, with the respondent fearing for his life in custody.

3. The rejection was based solely on high blood pressure, with no imminent danger noted. The duty of the applicant to ensure the health and safety of the accused during interrogation was emphasized. The respondent's apprehensions about safety were deemed unfounded, as the investigating officer was responsible for the accused's well-being.

4. The judgment quashed the earlier order and granted remand of the respondent for four days, to be taken from Taloja Central Prison in Maharashtra. The decision was based on the need for custodial interrogation to proceed with the investigation into money laundering offenses.